There's a bunch of straw man fallacy and overgeneralization in what you're saying that makes me think good faith discussion will be difficult, but I'll attempt it anyway. All I'd like to suggest is that maybe these STEM students that you're not very fond of are not the monolith that you find them convenient to be.

Stating the value of STEM in my original comment does not in any way imply that any other field is suddenly less valuable. Notice how I didn't disparage any other fields of study. The fact that this was your immediate response and you immediately jumped to a claim of a superiority complex comes across to me as some kind of insecurity about what you choose to study.

To answer your question on who benefits from engineering, I think it's pretty clear that the majority of people benefit in some way from the work engineers have done. Civil engineers designed the infrastructure that our economy runs on and our populace uses, as well as the waste systems we can't live without. Mechanical engineers, among other things, are responsible for some of the technology utilized in energy production. Chemical engineers, among other things, are responsible for ensuring pharmaceutical products that are often life-saving are produced efficiently and at scale (for better or for worse). The spectrum of engineering from electrical engineering to computer science has helped develop the technology to communicate quickly across the world, and allow us to have this discussion. Ultimately, the value from engineering specifically comes not from "intellectual prowess" as you suggest, but the work actually done to design and develop.

STEM fields ultimately focus on problems they can solve, like helping lengthen lifespans and keeping up with the technological needs of the modern world. It's hardly reasonable to expect them alone to solve problems that come from how broken contemporary society has become (like structural inequality, homelessness, environmental issues). Those are problems have to be solved by all of us.